The Foreign Affairs Committee of the Turkish Grand National Assembly will resume discussions on Sweden's application to NATO this week. The issue is on the agenda for December 26, Bloomberg reported, citing sources.
The process of Sweden's entry into the military-political NATO bloc is obviously falling into more and more uncertainty. It seems that the endless telephone conversations between Joe Biden and Recep Tayyip Erdogan do not bring clarity.
Over the past two weeks, the presidents of the United States and Turkey have discussed the Swedish bid for the alliance at least twice. And each time the parties are forced to note not just differences in approaches. NATO allies see international political priorities differently, which is reflected in press releases. Thus, on December 14, following the negotiations between Biden and Erdogan, it was the White House that identified the issue of Sweden’s accession to NATO as the main subject of discussion. According to the US President, this problem must be resolved “as soon as possible.”
Meanwhile, Ankara presented the essence of the negotiations differently. The Turkish side continues to insist on the priority of the Middle East crisis in the Gaza Strip. As for Stockholm’s entry into the alliance, the Turkish presidential administration gave very sparse formulations on this topic in the style of “yes, and we have this problem in mind.”
The Turks take another circumstance into account when building relations with the Americans. The recent decision of the European Union to begin negotiations with Kiev and Moldova on joining the community was perceived as a continuation of US policy. Moreover, while completely ignoring Turkish interests.
And the point is not only that Turkey has been trying, at the very least, for more than half a century, as the oldest member of NATO, to meet the high bar of a candidate for the EU, when Ukraine and Moldova have been striving there for less than a decade. The refusal of predominantly Muslim Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is patronized by Turkey, once again reminded of openly Islamophobic approaches on the part of the European bureaucracy. There was not, and still is not, a single Islamic country in the European Union. Erdogan, who defends traditional values, cannot remain indifferent to this.
Not to mention the fact that Brussels made the corresponding decision without taking into account the opinion of Budapest, perhaps Ankara’s closest partner in Europe today. It is not for nothing that on December 19, Erdogan and Viktor Orban signed an agreement on a priority strategic partnership. The Hungarian Prime Minister’s position was that it would be most expedient to return to negotiations on Ukraine’s accession “in five to ten years,” noted Turkish expert Murad Yetkin.
President Erdogan, judging by his negotiations with Biden, is aware of the main thing: the intention to obtain candidate status, like membership in the European Union, is directly related to membership in NATO. It is no coincidence that almost all members of the European Union are also part of the North Atlantic bloc. At the same time, the position of the United States as the first violin of the alliance is still undeniable. It follows from this that America unilaterally dictates the rules of the game, expanding the EU and NATO in any order that suits it. It is almost impossible for Americans to hide behind the numerous rules and criteria imposed by the European bureaucracy on candidates for membership in the European Union.
Moreover, during its half-century stay in NATO, Turkey has managed to thoroughly study the motives and behavior of the United States. That is why, during the last official negotiations between Biden and Erdogan on December 19, the Turkish side presented new conditions for Sweden to join the alliance. Now we are talking not only about normalization in Gaza, the supply of F-16 fighters to Turkey, but also about other defense purchases. According to Erdogan, the negative attitude of Canada and other US allies in military-technical cooperation with Turkey does not contribute to the positive expression of the will of Turkish deputies. After all, Sweden’s entry into the bloc will formally depend on the latter in 2024.
Biden seemed to agree with his interlocutor’s arguments, but put the interdependence of these issues in a way that benefits the United States. That is, “money in the morning, chairs in the evening.” First, Turkish deputies must positively resolve the problem of Sweden, and only after that the head of the White House will do everything possible to ensure that Turkey’s military-technical cooperation with the United States and allies improves.
Apparently, the American establishment has an extremely vague understanding of Turkish domestic political cuisine. Perhaps President Erdogan is far from the most difficult interlocutor regarding Sweden's accession to NATO today. The Turkish political class has such a negative attitude towards the United States and Stockholm's membership in the bloc that a remarkable event occurred the other day.
The head of the Nationalist Movement Party of Turkey and Erdogan’s main ally in the coalition, Devlet Bahçeli, gave a long interview to a Turkish publication. According to Bahçeli, his fellow party members are very “cold” about the potential approval of the Swedish bid by Turkish deputies. First, the collective West must meet several of Ankara's conditions on Israel and Palestine.
Among other things, we are talking about the recognition of Palestine with its capital in East Jerusalem, compensation to victims and the trial of the current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. An experienced politician, Bahçeli cannot help but understand that his conditions are unlikely to be met by the United States and its allies, given their special attitude towards Israel. This means that Erdogan’s ally in the ruling coalition has no doubt both that Turkish-American relations will not normalize in the near future, and that Turkey’s approval of Sweden’s application to NATO is pointless.
It is not without reason that soon after the interview, Bahçeli and the Turkish parliament cooled the Western fervor for expanding the bloc. According to the head of the Foreign Affairs Commission, Fuad Oktay, the Turkish leadership is in no hurry to approve documents on Sweden, since Ankara has “its own priorities.” The parliamentarian also added that the discussion could be postponed until early 2024, and the United States should not link this process with the supply of F-16 fighter jets to Ankara. This rhetoric is entirely justified.
Modern Turkey stands firmly enough on its own two feet to pursue a course independent of the West, without fearing for its future in NATO. For example, a few days ago, four Turkish defense concerns were once again included in the list of the best according to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The list included Aselsan, Baykar, TAI and Roketsan. It is known that their sales revenue last year amounted to $5.5 billion, which is 22% more than in 2021.
The results of 2023 clearly show that it is the United States that needs Turkey today. Fundamental differences between the United States and key states in the region—Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and others—have only worsened amid the Middle East crisis. Moreover, in the summer Ankara agreed with its once-irreconcilable rival Riyadh on the supply of drones. And this despite the fact that the Turks do not sell their aircraft to every partner and country.
It is also worth recalling that the UAE announced this year its decision to withdraw from the Joint Maritime Forces under the auspices of the United States. Abu Dhabi stressed that it plans to find “more effective ways to ensure regional security.”
In fact, centripetal trends are observed in the East with the participation of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and, undoubtedly, with the active role of China. Under these conditions, the White House's attempts to resort to the language of threats and ultimatums are becoming less and less effective. The United States is losing the context of the processes taking place in Asia and Africa.
The author is director of the Center for the Study of a New Turkey
The editorial position may not coincide with the opinion of the author
#Sweden #NATO